Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Ambiguous Planning approval Question
-
10-07-2012 10:49pm#1Rewind to 2009 and we got planning approval for a major renovation of a 1860's Victorian house which involved taking the front half of the interior back to bare brick and the same in the back but additionally with the removal of all floors, and fitting in a third storey attic conversion. ie Ground floor, first floor, second floor/attic conversion. The house was going from 4 bedroom to 6.
Approval was given but a contentious condition was the following:Condition No. 4 of 11:
The proposed Dormer window at roof level shall be omitted. Prior to the commencement of development revised details and drawings should be submitted to the Planning Authority to illustrate this.
Reason: In order to ensure that there are no issues of overlooking and the inclusion of an additional bedroom in the attic space shall result in a dwelling in excess of site coverage standards
At the time we took this to mean that the Southern aspect Dormer had to go and so did the architects. The room still worked even with just 2 Velux, so we were OK with the decision. After seeing the build cost reduction and eventually seeing the North side zinc clad Dormer after it was built, we ended up being kind of glad the Planners rejected it on the side of the house visible from the road.
When the house was finished and inspected by the planners they took issue with the other North facing dormer and said no approval had been given for it. The architect successfully argued that the condition on the initial approval was ambiguous and did not definitively state both dormers and refered to the Dormer that overlooked other properties (The one facing south) in the singular.
There was a lot of other stressfull stuff never mind the build going on at the time and I forget whether it was ever clarified by the planners or the architects to us whether the last part of the reasoning for the condition effectively rejected the attic bedroom in terms of compliance. ie. to be able to call it a bedroom in the event of selling the house. It didn't matter to us at the time in any substantive way anyway as the room was going to be a Home Cinema so maybe thats another reason I didn't pay enough attention to get clarification on this point at the time.
At any rate, the plans remained the same and the work was done to the plans. ie Almost Everything about the attic conversion part of the job meets the DOE Regs. ie. Number of rooms, Total square meterage, % floor area with at least 2.4m ceiling height, Mains powered fire alarms, Fireboard plasterboard on first floor underneath. etc etc. Excepting, the planning approval question, the room as is could not get a cert because we ended up wanting access to a bathroom in the attic space from the attic landing which necessitated a spiral staircase. We also saved money at the end of the build when money was running out by not fitting fire doors.
Recent changes to the families living arrangements and recognition that we made some bad choices when telling the architects how many and where we wanted the new rooms, have meant we want to make some changes to the first and second floor(attic conversion) On the second floor we will take out the Bathroom door to the attic landing and turn the bathroom into an ensuite. This means we can now fit a real staircase albeit a winder. I have 3D modeled it roughly and I believe we can meet the regs with regard to rise, going, slope and height clearance. Downstairs on the first floor its not going to be that big of a job as it effectively involves removal of one non load bearing stud wall to turn the two small double bedrooms into a single large bedroom and turning the third small double into a reasonably large family bathroom. Rather than give over to the new bathroom area the now not needed section of corridor that gave access to a bedroom that is now unpartitioned and has access via the other bedroom door, I have decided to turn that section of corridor into a storage cupboard. Along with new storage under the new enclosed stairs to the attic, we now have the storage we were sorely lacking. However the main reason for not giving over that corridor space to make for an even bigger family bathroom is that it will make for the cheapest and least disruptive way of repartioning that new large bedroom back into 2 small double bedrooms should the need arise. ie. put back up a stud partition, open up doorway again, remove starage cupboard front wall again.
This is why the question about whether the attic room was, is or ever can be called a bedroom in the event of a sale is important.
We plan to be in this house for decades. The changes I want to make to the first and second floors (So soon after redevelopement, I know, I know
) will bring the bedroom total back down to 4. I know this is ironic given that we started off with 4 bedrooms before the renovations but believe me, its a better distribution of floor area now than before. I don't regret what we commisioned the architects to deliver nor any of the money spent. The house needed to be gutted anyway.
For us it will be a 4 bedroom house. We are/will be using 4 bedrooms to sleep in. However now the question of the certification for the attic room becomes important. If heaven forbid we ever need to sell, the ambiguous planning approval might mean we can only market the house as a 3 Bedroom.
At a minium a house this size needs to be at least a 4 bed for sale. If the attic room, wasn't ever nor never can be a certified bedroom, then in the event of the need to sell, we would need to repartition the un-partitioned bedroom on the first floor back into 2 small doubles. Hence my plan for the corridor/storage cupboard is good future proofing.
If however, the attic room can be made certifiable with a real staircase and firedoors, or if it was uncertifiable because it was formerly to be a 6th bedroom which "is in excess of site coverage standards" but the new proposed first floor configuration reduces the bedroom total back to 4 (or 5 if we re-parititioned the large bedroom back to 2 small doubles pre-sale)....................[Boy that was a mouthful
] ..........well, then assuming my understanding that excess site coverage effectively means too many people living in one dwelling with limited parking etc Does that mean we could approach the planning department, inform them of the changes and now get the attic room re-certified??
Then what would be possible in the unlikely event of a need to sell, if we can count the attic in use bedroom as an officially certified bedroom we could decide to re-partition or not that first floor bedroom depending on whether a selling agent at the time feels the house is better marketed as a 4 large bedroom house or a 3 large bedroom + 2 small doubles house
Basically, if the planning department with that condition ruled out that attic room ever being a certified bedroom, why did the architects let us proceed with all the extra expense of making it compliant for the most part. Is the reason that compliance makes sense from a usability/safety aspect regardless of whether the room has planning approval to be called a bedroom...or....because the extra expense means larger fee to the architects (or a mixture of both :rolleyes: )
I can't get in contact with the architect for a few weeks to ask him whether the condition on the approval was purely about the dormer or if it ruled out certification of the space as a bedroom too. Surely it would be less ambiguous if that rejection of the space as a bedroom was mentioned as a separate condition and not possibly ambiguously alluded to in the reasoning for a condition thats about rejecting a dormer window (Singular). I am wary about going to the planning office without being reasonably sure of the answer because I don't want to risk opening a can of worms if I don't have to. Remember, this is the shower that apply ambiguous conditions and then inspect at the end of the build and try to say we contravened planning approval and built a dormer without permision. I don't want to risk the case being revisited etc etc if I don't have to.
This is why I am hoping someone here can discypher the qouted condition. Sorry about the TLDR invoking long post
Below are some plans from the architects that I photoshopped with me proposed new first floor room arrangement at the back of the house.
0
Comments
-
-
Architects drawings sent for approval had a zinc clad dormer on both sides of the roof. On the South facing side and the north facing side. South facing is street side and was to have a window. North facing would only have had a view of neighbours roof. Architect only had a rooflight/skylight in that dormer box anyway. Like I said in Chapter 2 verse six paragraph 7
in hindsight we realised that we would have agreed with the Planners ruling that the large south facing street side Dormer box on the roof was a nono No complaints from us there. We quickly realised it would have looked horrible.
The confusion came from the wording of the condition which only refers to an 'overlooking' dormer 'Window' (Singular). We and the architect assumed that seeing as the north facing dormer overlooked nothing but a slate roof with no view of even a garden and didn't even have a window but a rooflight/skylight, that the condition talking about overlooking could not be refering to this dormer but only the south facing street side dormer that was supposed to have a window. The condition called for revised plans to be drawn up and sent.
Revised Plans with South facing dormer replaced with 3 Velux were resubmitted, and accepted I assume. Work was completed and only upon inspection by the planners did the inspector claim surprise that we had gone ahead with the north facing dormer anyway and claimed it contravened the planning approval. Now tbh seeing as nothing else came of this after the architect argued the case, this is actually proof how ambiguous the wording of the intial planning approval was, given that the inspector interpretted it differently to the architect and the higher ups who didn't force us to demolish it. (Its not like we had to apply for retention or anything)
The OP isn't really about that part of the planning condition anyway. There was no attempt to wilfully contravene the planning conditions nor circumvent planning law. I merely mentioned it to show how the ambiguity of this condition had already caused confusion before, during and after the build.
You ask whether we went ahead and put a room where it was specifically conditioned that we couldn't do so. The attic conversion with Dormer( but as it ended up Velux) was the only reason we needed planning approval in the first place. While a case may be argued that the ambiguous reasoning for dormer removal also denied the use of the attic room as a bedroom, surely it cannot be implied that the last few sentances of the condition precluded the conversion of that attic to a room at all???
Due to the ambiguousness of the wording one might conclude that the condition prevents us calling the attic room a bedroom as well as telling us not to build a south facing dormer but if so, why was this ruling tagged onto the end of the reasoning for a dormer removal condition with request for revised plan submission, and not mentioned as a separate condition on the planning approval letter
In effect, to me, the wording of the condition sounds a bit like this.We approve your planning application for a dormer on your roof but btw, No you cant have that dormer on your roof, send us some new plans with the dormer removed that is the only reason you needed to apply for planning from us in the first place. Hey, the reason we want you to remove the dormer is to stop you overlooking your neighbours across the street. Why don't you resubmit plans with velux windows instead which we will approve from which you can also look out of at your neighbours across the street. Oh yeah, the reason for removal of the dormer is that thats too many bedrooms for the house, dwelling excess site coverage blah blah so eh yeah, ye can't build the dormer because you shouldn't have a 6th bedroom up there anyway.
My questions basically is if I have correctly interpretted what the wording 'Excess site coverage' means, does the ambiguous wording mean the room can never be called a bedroom and does the fact that I want to change the house back to 4 or 5 bedrooms mean the dwelling is no longer in excess of site coverage standards and that I could get the room re-classified as a bona fide bedroom after the new work is completed.0 -
-
To be honest most of what you wrote is irrelevant.Opps, I did it again!
Surely, its better I get all the information out in one or two posts than have this thread be a 50 question 2 week marathon where you have to drag all the pertinent details out of me
Let's go slowly from the start;
The condition is poorly phrased. I agree that as it stands it is singular, but it doesn't indicate which is to be removed.Condition No. 4 of 11:
The proposed Dormer window at roof level shall be omitted. Prior to the commencement of development revised details and drawings should be submitted to the Planning Authority to illustrate this.
Reason: In order to ensure that there are no issues of overlooking and the inclusion of an additional bedroom in the attic space shall result in a dwelling in excess of site coverage standards
Either, it should say, windows if it means both, or indicate which by north/south dormer.
The submission of revised drawings is there to clarify these issues. And that's what you should have done.
If the submitted plans show one dormer, as was built, and planning dept accepted then its fine imo. But you don't sound sure if they did or not.Revised Plans with South facing dormer replaced with 3 Velux were resubmitted, and accepted I assume. Work was completed and only upon inspection by the planners did the inspector claim surprise that we had gone ahead with the north facing dormer anyway and claimed it contravened the planning approval.
What likely happened was that the planner seen the conditions refer to a single dormer, and then seen a single dormer built. Referring to the drawings should clear it up and the approval. Dormer might need to go.
Once clear, a cert of compliance with planning can be issued. Case closed.
All the other stuff you mentioned are building regulations issues and have nothing to do with planning. You must comply with them no matter what. Stairs, fire doors, and any other issues. Once you comply with these issues, the attic is classed as a bedroom. You post was so long and all over the place I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Why can't you comply with these regulations.
The condition is to do with the dormer or dormers but it doesn't prevent the conversion of the attic to a bedroom. Which is planning exempt.While a case may be argued that the ambiguous reasoning for dormer removal also denied the use of the attic room as a bedroom, surely it cannot be implied that the last few sentances of the condition precluded the conversion of that attic to a room at all???My questions basically is if I have correctly interpretted what the wording 'Excess site coverage' means, does the ambiguous wording mean the room can never be called a bedroom and does the fact that I want to change the house back to 4 or 5 bedrooms mean the dwelling is no longer in excess of site coverage standards and that I could get the room re-classified as a bona fide bedroom after the new work is completed.
The condition affects the dormers only.
If the second plans showing only 1 dormer were submitted and approved. Then planning compliance can be achieved now, once building regulation compliance for a 3rd story bedroom is achieved the attic is a bedroom.
If the seconds plans were never approved, then you need to find out why and fix it now, failing that lose the dormer, or seek retention. Then planning compliance can be achieved. You can then convert the attic to a bedroom, without dormers and if you comply with building regs for a bedroom, then its a bedroom.
Basically it comes down to the approval of revised plans. If you are lucky, then there will be am approved record of the single dormer and then you are ok. But I doubt this will happen. Getting revised plans approved after the fact will is difficult given the fact that you've shown your intentions.0 -
Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,747 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 18500
-
Advertisement
-
I'm sorry for making you all wade through that
Its my fault for not paying enough attention at the time and getting clarification from the architect about what the planning approval with condition meant in principle for that 'Bedroom'.
I know that the architect involved will have some recollection of our development from 2 years ago and that after consulting his records will be able to answer my questions easily enough.
I only bother you guys with it because he is abroad for another month or two and so I can't ask him till he is back in the country. I'm an impatient fecker sometimes. Like I said, with the planning confusion the last time, I feared that if I contacted the Planning office to get the information from them, I might invoke them to re-examine the whole planning status of the house. Can they do that? Maybe its an unfounded fear and if they signed of on everything when the job was completed, theres no way they can revoke that now. However, I can be paranoid sometimes So those are the reasons I haven't asked the architect my questions nor the planning department and was hoping for some answers here.
Even though we wouldn't be doing this little bit of remodeling that brought the original planning issues to mind till this time next year, I want to plan well in advance which is something I obvously didn't do well enough before the major job 2 years ago (If I had, I wouldn't need to remodel again so soon )
To reiterate. The Status of the Attic Bedroom has now become important again to me because my remodel plans would reduce bedroom numbers to a very small number (3) for a house this size if one cannot ever call the attic room a bedroom for the purposes of a sale. If that were the case then I wouldn't do the remodel or would do it differently. Basically, I don't want the next few weeks worth of my spare time wasted brainstorming my remodel plans or taking them in a certain direction, only to find out when the architect comes back and I get clarification on the original approval, that those brainstormed ideas are moot due to the status of that attic bedroom.Condition No. 4 of 11:
The proposed Dormer window at roof level shall be omitted. Prior to the commencement of development revised details and drawings should be submitted to the Planning Authority to illustrate this.
Reason: In order to ensure that there are no issues of overlooking and the inclusion of an additional bedroom in the attic space shall result in a dwelling in excess of site coverage standards
I guess it boils down to this. Does anyone think the bolded part of the condition has anything to do with being able to call the attic room a bedroom for the purposes of a sale? Some of you seem to be saying that it doesn't, that this condition refers only to the Dormer 'Box' part of the bedroom. ie. do those people think 'excess Site Coverage standards' is the planners basically saying. "Thats too big of a box to be putting on the streetside slope of your roof. It looks ugly and would allow you to overlook your neighbours across the street. Get rid of the box and the bedroom is fine as far as we're concerned......"
Its just that when I googled that terminology from the bolded part of the condition, I got back some hits on Irish planning documents alright but in each case the term, 'Dwelling in excess of site coverage standards' seemed to be the planners rejecting a development on the basis of too many habitable rooms in a dwelling or too many dwellings in too small an area and talking about parking and services provision etc etc
I'm sorry again lads and lasses, I just can't seem to boil my questions down any further than that.....and I still ended up with a marathon post :eek: 0 -
Just noticed Mellors point about what might have been going through the planning inspectors head at the end of the project.
Thus I imagine the Timeline could be:
Planners include condition for removal of dormer and resubmittion of plans.
Plans resubmitted with northfacing dormer box with skylight still in place but with South facing streetside dormer box with window removed from plans and replaced with Velux Windows.
Planners raise no objections to resubmitted plans and project starts
Project nears its end and Planning inspector arrives on site. She was not necessarily involved in the planning approval process but commisioned to inspect for compliance.
She is given the Original approval document with the aforementioned condition to check against the project for compliance.
She compares the condition with the finished project, see's the condition on the original approval refer to a dormer in the singular. See's a single dormer in the finished project. Accuses us of contravening the planning.
Architect sorts the confusion out. Planners had indeed accepted revised plans which kept the northfacing dormer and it was simply a case of an inspector not au fait with all the details misinterpreting the badly worded conditions.
Fair play to you Mellor for being able to wade through my wall of text and get to the nub of the matter of the overall planning approval status. Your explanation seems like the most plausible reason for the confusion at the time of inspection.
Yes or No answers to the final clarifications will do but feel free to elaborate
So you are saying the "Dwelling in excess of site coverage" bit is a red herring? That in terms of redevelopment of a private dwelling, they are only concerned with changes to the outside of the building. We made the changes they asked, they inspected them and after some initial confusion, signed off on the building as compliant with Planning??
That as long as the house is a private dwelling I can reconfigure the inside of the house and subdivide into different bedroom configurations to my hearts content without referance to or fear of planning That for all they care, I can have 3,4,5 or 6 bedrooms inside as long as the house remains and is sold as a private dwelling??
That all I need to do to make the Attic room an 'Official Bedroom' is to fit a real compliant staircase and fit firedoors on the first floor as all other loft conversion building and fire regulations were already met during the original redevelopment.
That my remodelling plans for the first floor bedrooms at the back are totally fine as long as I maintain the integrity of the fireproofing??
0 -
-
-
I think that was part of the reason for the confusion at the time of planning and inspection. The Planners/Inspector writing/reading the approval and attached conditions raised their eyes to Heaven :rolleyes: and said TLDR to themselves. Hence ambiguously badly worded approval and attached conditions by the Planners and confused initial interpretation of them by the inspector.
I can easily accept a TLDR response from the helpful posters here. They are after all helping others on their own free time without payment. I don't like the idea of TLDR from bloody planners though who I am paying a fee to and taxes for
Funnily enough there is a piece on the local paper today about the frustrating planning process in Wicklow and how Wicklow CC is the only council that architects have a problem dealing with and that they should try and emulate the Wexford and Carlow proccess?? It talks about a pre-planning proccess should be put in place so applicants and architects can have face to face meetings with planners to iron out differences and ensure both are on the same page rather than the long drawn out process of archtects trying to decypher/interpret approval conditions, planners trying to interpret the architects interpretation of the conditions in their resubmissions, back and forth, back and forth etc etc Councillor Nicky Kelly is taking this to the council on behalf of Architects organisations.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
sydthebeat wrote: »can you clarify something for me
did you send in drawings for approval as was requested in the condition?
if so, what did they show?
is the house a protected structure?
Yes, we sent revised plans as requested. They showed a Dormer with Skylight on the North side of the roof and 3 Velux on the South street facing side
No, the house is not a protected structure.
I think I get why people are still asking, "Whats your bloody question"
ie. If there was no problem with the revised plans as far as the planners were concerned. If after some initial confusion about the condititions being met, there was no problem with the inspector issuing a certificate of compliance. Then whats his Problem, what is he asking us
My problem is that I didn't realise until it was pointed out by some previous posters, that compliance with conditions to do with aspects on the exterior of the property is Plannings only involvement, its the only parts of the project they can dictate and have no right to enforce any internal configuration or number of bedrooms as long as the house is a non protected private dwelling.
I thought up till now that they had the power to dictate what could and couldn't be called a bedroom. I thought that there was a possibility that the last sentance of the condition was the planners exercising that power.
Mellor I think it was, clarified that they do not in fact have that power. That attic room is a bedroom as long as it complies with attic conversion building and fire regs.
Everyones confusion about what exactly it was I was asking comes from the assumption that I knew what parts of the project the planners had a right to dictate about.
I am was sure I had made it obvious that I didn't know exactly what the planners had a right to dictate about when I asked very early on, "....if the planning department with that condition ruled out that attic room ever being a certified bedroom"
Sometimes laying out all facts you think might be important in a post saves time of other posters having to draw the answers out of you with a question and answer going back and every few hours over the course of a few days.
I was trying to pre-empt that. Turns out I was hiding the basic question in walls of text0 -
-
-
-
Right, that part is answered.
Did the council in turn return comment that the submission re that condition was acceptable, even by reference to the drawing?
If they said in writing that the revision was acceptable,you have no issues re the windows.
If on the revised plan submitted you noted bedroom and along with the other changes, and they did not say no, imo you would be grand.
Is that still what your asking???????
Thats the thing. I was never asking about windows. I assumed everything was OK with the velux windows on the revised plan and with the dormer on the north side after the confusion with the inspector was cleared up....cause they never told us to take either back out.
I merely mentioned that confusion about dormers and windows with the inspector to highlight that the ambiguity of this particular condition had already cause confusion. That now it was causing me confusion once again 2 years latter because my remodel plans changed the number of bedrooms again and thus it became more important to me that the attic space be called a bedroom in the unlikely event of the need to sell.
The timeline leading up to this thread was the following:
I start thinking about reconfiguring the layout of some stud walls/rooms. The design we picked 2 years ago for the major gutting and redevelopment of the property wasn't working for us.
I am reducing the number of bedrooms on the first floor from 5 to 3. I already know the attic room is not a compliant bedroom because it has a spiral staircase going up to the attic landing and we never fitted firedoors to the first floor rooms.
I decided that along with the first floor remodel(basically moving some stud walls) I should bring the attic room up to spec by fitting a real compliant staircase and firedoors. This way, with a now compliant attic 'bedroom' plus the now 3 bedrooms on the first floor, would add up to 4 bedrooms for the purposes of a resale.
I started researching the regulations for a fully compliant Attic conversion Bedroom. There are obvious things I can see and check and measure and am able to confirm that the attic room meets all of them. What I can't check is whether the actual structure of the build was built to meet the 30 minute Fire resistance rule.
I go through the emails between ourselves and the architect for the major job 2 years ago to see if I can find the information about build I need.
I come across the Planning Approval document in one of the early emails though its not what I was searching for.
I start to get worried that I may be misunderstanding it, because the condition kind of sounds like its saying that the attic room is not a bedroom due to 'Excess site coverage...."
I say to myself, Woah! if I can't ever call the attic room a bedroom then maybe I shouldn't be thinking about reducing the number of bedrooms on the first floor.
The architect is away so I can't contact him to ask him.
I decided to ask here.
No one has the patience to read my posts fully
......and here we are 0 -
-
sydthebeat wrote: »occams razor....
Poor uncle Toms last post answered your question.
Mellor answered it early on. I've been on a clarification binge for others ever since which meant more walls of text and making it even harder for the latecomers to the thread to see that it had already been answered and my confusion about the Planning departments remit was already cleared. Mucho Thanks to everyone for there patience. Thanks Poor uncle Tom, thanks Mellor, Thanks Muffler, Thanks Sydthebeat. I hope I haven't left anyone out. Thanks everyone!!
To clarify for others who reach this thread via a google search in 2016 :
The planners can only impose conditions on the outside of the property as long as its not a protected property and a private dwelling. They can't dictate what you can call or sell as a Bedroom inside the house, provided the bedroom meets building and fire regs.
In our case, we met those Planning conditions after some initial confusion. That, it seems is the end of the planning departments involvement with our house.
As our attic room was built 2 years ago to meet all building and fire regs with the exception of a real compliant staircase and firedoors on the first floor, then all that remains for us to do during our reconfiguration of rooms next year is to fit that compliant staircase and firedoors and then we will have a fully compliant attic 'Bedroom'.
The Planning approval and its attached conditions from 2 years ago have nothing to do with it.0
Advertisement